Bob Duffy/Talk

This page is where differences in opinions about RocWiki pages are resolved, and notes are left from one contributor to another related to content.

Talk about the parent page:

Note: You must be logged in to add comments

2005-11-26 16:12:03   I don't want to get in an editing fight, and I hold no brief for Bob Duffy. I'm just trying to get a bit of balance back into his bio. First, if Duffy cut the precincts from 7 to 2, and if that reform was part of the reason that he lost the Union endorsement, then I don't think the modifier "minor bureaucratic" is factual. The reforms, whether for good or for ill, were neither minor nor merely bureaucratic. Also, italicizing "fifty positions" and bolding 1.3 million is a way to make them seem like a lot without facts. A lot compared to what? If we ought to be shocked about those numbers, just edit the entry and put in some comparisons, e.g, "fifty positions, where historically only 10-20 where open" (if 10-20 is the number), or "1.3 million, a record that doubles the last contested Democratic primary". —RottenChester

2005-11-26 18:42:34   Go for it. Modify as you see fit. I'm happier with more viewpoints represented by the articles here. The Democrat & Chronicle page has some nice discussion on the topic of bias / NPOV, and should give you a good idea of where various members of the community stand. I feel that hard fact and contrasting opinions can be made to coexist on a single page without sacrificing its coherency, and that that is a worthwhile goal to pursue while editing. Adding a 'Praise' and 'Criticism' section might be all that is needed to restructure things for now so that future information files itself away neatly without too much controversy. —RobertPolyn

2005-11-27 10:25:00 Since there are facts at issue, and since this is a pretty major re-write that removes a small amount of text posted by another contributor, here are notes on sources.

The personal info was taken from the campaign bio and the D&C article introducing Duffy. Anything controversial was moved to other areas.

There are two facts in dispute in the "Police Career" section:

1. Number of open positions in the RPD.

A D&C Editorial puts the number at 40, not "at least 50" as stated in the previous edit. I took this as fact. Also, the same editorial made the point about the civil service bottleneck, and Duffy made this point in an interview with Bob Smith on WXXI which I heard earlier this year.

2. Whether Duffy lived in Fairport and moved back to Rochester to get the Deputy Chief job.

The only source I could find for this accusation was Parinello's statement near the end of a mayoral debate. There was not enough time for Duffy to rebut this accusation, and it appeared nowhere else in the articles linked, nor could I find it in Google and D&C archive searches. Therefore, I removed it from the factual section and relegated it to the campaign rhetoric and aftermath section, and labeled it a charge. If someone can substantiate this as fact, please edit it back in and note the source here or in the edit comment.

In the 2005 Mayoral Race:

Re: Amount spent in the campaign, and amount spent by Duffy.

This article details Duffy's record spending. This is the latest article I could find on spending.

Source for 2002 incidents: "Police missteps test integrity" D&C Archives.

The last edit tried to make a causal connection between the redistricting reforms and the Locust Club endorsement of Norwood. Considering the fact that Norwood voted for redistricting, that causality is suspect at best. A NPOV has to include Duffy's side of the story, and remove the causality, since the facts don't support it.

This article is where I got the details on the Locust Club endorsement squabble.

I don't think every entry (or even every controversial entry) needs this kind of factual support, but I wanted to structure this entry so there was a high standard of fact and an organization that would encourage future addition. —RottenChester

2005-11-28 11:48:50   If I wanted a regurgitation of the D&C, then I would be reading the D&C's website and not ROCwiki's website. I am relying on first-hand knowledge for many of these more controversial facts and figures. D&C paper says 40, City paper says 50. But in every debate, the number used by the participants was 50. And it was not disputed by anyone in the debate. So, I'll take 50. Same goes for Duffy living in Fairport. When he is accused of it several times in several debates, don't you think he would take the ten seconds to respond and correct any factual error with a simple "I never lived in Fairport" ??? I'll be down in the Board of Elections next week to review final campaign disclosure reports (due December 5th) and will personally confirm his voter registration history then. —ChrisMaj

2005-11-28 13:33:27   I have trouble with the following line: During the campaign, Duffy belatedly alleged that he did not seek, nor did he ultimately receive, the endorsement of the police workers' union, the Locust Club, which endorsed Wade Norwood. More specifically, going by the information I have access to alleged and belatedly are inaccurate. My source is Duffy's letter as reproduced by the Locust Club Web site (pdf). I am editing the page accordingly. If you have a more accurate source, please undo my changes. —RobertPolyn

2005-11-28 13:49:32   I agree: the wiki is not the D&C, but it is also not the private sounding board of one political group.

So, with that said, here's my take on the latest round of edits: 40-50, as you had it, is great. Acknowledges controversy about the fact. Since you're going to get the facts on Fairport from the original source, I didn't touch that. I did put in both sides on his kids attending private school - let the reader judge that fact in context.

NPOV is all I'm looking for here, not a coronation. All I'm saying is put in his defense when you put in a charge, or else put it in the "rhetoric" section. And, in the parts that aren't rhetoric, don't put in all the perjoratives whenever you state a fact. For example, I struck "doled out" in the last part. I thought that was more fair than putting in the obvious rejoinder, which is that $500 is a small percentage of $700k, that a RIT criminal justice prof is probably qualified to serve on a transition team, etc. But, if you want to keep "doled out", I'll put in the obvious rejoinder.

Also, I agree with Robert on the Locust Club endorsement.—RottenChester

2005-11-28 14:14:47   In terms of the schooling of Duffy's daughters, I'm wondering if expansion on that controversy would be appropriate. In addition to it being a family and faith issue, I also recall discussion of his wife working at the same school his daughters attended, and the family receiving half off tuition in turn. —RobertPolyn

2005-11-28 16:18:25   I moved the Duffy Daughter issue to the 2005 Election section, mostly for ease of maintenance. If we can keep the bio to "just facts" then this entry will be easier to maintain. My recollection is the same as Robert's on Duffy's defense to this charge, so I fleshed it out. —RottenChester

2005-11-28 17:55:47   I think the page ordering makes more sense as I've adjusted it. Please comment if you disagree. —RobertPolyn

2005-11-29 10:13:07   I put the endorsement stuff in one place. That will make it easier to find. "non-endorsement" didn't make sense to me - Maggie Brooks didn't endorse him either. I also did some editing to make it more concise - not intended to alter the overall points being made. —RottenChester

2005-11-29 10:40:31   I missed this on the first edit: Put the "didn't seek" back into the endorsement controversy, but in the "duffy defense" block. There's a technicality there, but Duffy clearly states in his letter that he isn't asking for it. I thought that point had been made. —RottenChester

2007-03-31 22:35:32   This page is in a sore need of re-organization. We need an actual mayor page that simply lists Rochester's mayors with their terms and the names link to eawch mayor's person page. —TravisOwens